|
Is it a question of part in the sense that, taking one living
being, the soul in a finger might be called a part of the soul
entire?
This would carry the alternative that either there is no soul
outside of body, or that- no soul being within body- the thing
described as the soul of the universe is, none the less, outside
the body of the universe. That is a point to be investigated, but
for the present we must consider what kind of soul this parallel
would give us.
If the particular soul is a part of the All-Soul only in the
sense that this bestows itself upon all living things of the
partial sphere, such a self-bestowal does not imply division; on
the contrary, it is the identical soul that is present
everywhere, the one complete thing, multi-present at the one
moment: there is no longer question of a soul that is a part
against a soul that is an all- especially where an identical
power is present. Even difference of function, as in eyes and
ears, cannot warrant the assertion of distinct parts concerned in
each separate act- with other parts again making allotment of
faculty- all is met by the notion of one identical thing, but a
thing in which a distinct power operates in each separate
function. All the powers are present either in seeing or in
hearing; the difference in impression received is due to the
difference in the organs concerned; all the varying impressions
are our various responses to Ideal-forms that can be taken in a
variety of modes.
A further proof [of the unity of Soul] is that perception demands
a common gathering place; every organ has its distinct function,
and is competent only upon its own material, and must interpret
each several experience in its own fashion; the judgement upon
these impressions must, then, be vested in some one principle, a
judge informed upon all that is said and done.
But again: "Everywhere, Unity": in the variety of functions if
each "part of the soul" were as distinct as are the entrant
sensations, none of those parts could have knowledge; awareness
would belong only to that judging faculty- or, if local, every
such act of awareness would stand quite unrelated to any other.
But since the soul is a rational soul, by the very same title by
which it is an All-Soul, and is called the rational soul, in the
sense of being a whole [and so not merely "reasoning locally"],
then what is thought of as a part must in reality be no part but
the identity of an unparted thing.
|
|